wn»* 


C&e  JLi&tatp 

of  ti)e 

Onitiersitp  of  jQortf)  Carolina 


Collection  of  jRortl)  Cacolintana 


H<^7L 


CORRESPONDENCE 


AND 

INTERVIEWS 

• 

REGARDING 

State  Printing  Contrac 

‘  AND  THE  CONTENTIONS  OF  ONE  OF  THE 
FIVE  CONTRACTORS  RELATIVE 
THERETO 


COMPILED  FOR  THE  INFORMATION  OF 
MEMBERS  OF  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY 

1923 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


https://archive.org/details/correspondenceinOOnort 


LETTER  OF  CHIEF  JUSTICE  CLARK  AS  TO  CHARACTER 

OF  WORK  ON  VOLUME  132 


Raleigh,  March  31,  1922. 

Department  of  Printing ,  Office. 

Dear  Sirs  I  have  looked  over  the  volume  of  132  N.  C.,  and  I  do  not 
think  that  the  State  ought  to  accept  it  or  let  it  go  out  to  the  profession 
and  to  the  public. 

I  do  not  know  how  it  has  happened  that  a  reputable  house,  as  the 
publishers  are,  has  let  it  be  printed  in  its  present  form.  I  have  never 
seen  in  my  entire  life  a  volume  that  so  completely  swarms  with  errors  of 
every  kind.  Vot  only  words  are  misspelled  or  substituted,  but  they  are 
often  omitted.  The  paging  is  faulty,  the  spacing  is  unequal  and  irregu¬ 
lar,  and  so  are  the  margins. 

1  do  not  wish  to  be  critical,  but  as  a  lawyer  I  do  not  think  that  the 
volume  should  go  to  the  profession,  and  it  would  be  a  discredit  to  the 
State  to  put  so  faulty  a  book  on  the  market. 

Certainly  the  work  ought  to  be  reprinted  and  the  present  edition 
canceled. 

I  need  not  point  out  to  your  Department  the  errors  in  this  publication, 
for  there  is  scarcely  a  page  that  is  without  them.  Altogether  it  is  the 
worst  job  I  have  ever  seen.  The  errors  will  speak  for  themselves.  It 
should  not  go  out  to  the  public  as  a  volume  of  the  Reports  of  this  State 
until  it  is  reprinted.  Yours  truly, 

Walter  Clark. 


SECRETARY  OF  STATE  REQUESTS  THAT  PAYMENT 

BE  WITHHELD 

Raleigh,  April  10,  1922. 

TIon.  J.  Bryan  Grimes,  Secretary  of  State, 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 

Dear  Sir: — We  enclose  copy  of  letter  from  Chief  Justice  Clark  rela¬ 
tive  to  the  character  of  work  done  on  the  reprint  of  Volume  132,  A.  C. 
Supreme  Court  Reports,  and  the  condition  m  which  he  finds  this 

reprint. 

This  is  the  volume  which  was  the  subject  of  your  telephone  message 
to  this  Department  on  March  31st,  requesting  that  payment  for  same  be 
withheld  until  investigation  as  to  its  condition  could  be  made. 

You  will  please  advise  this  Department  whether  it  is  your  purpose  to 
accept  this  volume  and  make  sale  and  distribution  of  it  m  the  condition 
in  which  you  find  it,  or  whether  this  Department  shall  cancel  the  first 

order  and  place  another  for  a  corrected  edition. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Department  of  Labor  and  Printing, 

M.  L.  Shipman,  Commissioner. 


Q 

<) 


FIRST  LETTER  FROM  EDWARDS  &  BROUGHTON 

PRINTING  COMPANY 


Raleigh,  N.  C.,  November  25,  1922. 

State  Printing  Commission, 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 

Gentlemen  : — Prior  to  the  1921  strike  Volume  132  of  the  North  Caro¬ 
lina  Reports  was  allotted  to  this  company  for  reprint,  and  we  pro¬ 
ceeded  with  the  work  in  the  usual  way.  The  proofs  were  submitted  to 
Judge  Clark  in  accordance  with  instructions,  and  he  returned  them  to  us 
with  his  corrections.  The  volume  was  printed  during  the  summer  and 
fall  of  1921.  Upon  requests  from  the  State  for  these  books,  we  delivered 
1,182  volumes  previous  to  March  25,  1922.  There  was  no  suggestion 
from  anyone  that  the  volume  was  not  satisfactory  until  April  10,  when 
we  attempted  to  make  delivery  of  the  last  68  volumes,  and  were  then 
notified  over  the  telephone,  by  some  employee  of  the  State  Department 
that  the  reprint  was  not  acceptable. 

About  October  10,  1922,  this  company  decided  to  print  again  the 
132d  Volume,  North  Carolina  Reports,  without  prejudice — the  Commis¬ 
sioner  of  Labor  and  Printing,  Mr.  Shipman,  having  agreed  to  furnish 
State  paper  at  cost  and  permit  us  to  use  the  binding  now  on  that  volume, 
these  used  covers  to  be  cased  in  instead  of  laced  on  without  reduction  in 
price.  We  were  instructed  by  Mr.  Nichols  to  deliver  proofs  of  this 
reprint  to  him  and  not  to  Judge  Clark.  This  was  done,  but  they  have 
been  returned  marked  “Not  read.” 

It  has  been  the  custom  for  important  printed  matter  to  be  proof-read 
by  some  responsible  official  or  employee  of  the  State,  and  we  have  under¬ 
stood  that  Judge  Clark  was  the  proper  official  to  receive  and  proof-read 
the  prints  and  reprints  of  the  North  Carolina  Reports.  Heretofore  we 
have  printed  these  volumes  upon  his  return  of  the  proofs,  but  we  are 
now  faced  with  a  specific  order  from  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of 
Labor  and  Printing  not  to  submit  these  proofs  to  Judge  Clark.  There¬ 
fore,  Ave  are  compelled  to  call  upon  the  Printing  Commission  for  a  ruling 
as  to  the  proper  person  to  whom  we  shall  submit  the  proofs  of  this 
Arolume  of  the  North  Carolina  Reports,  and  to  ask  upon  whose  correc¬ 
tions  it  shall  be  printed.  We  are  unwilling  to  assume  the  final  responsi¬ 
bility  for  the  proofreading  of  the  North  Carolina  Reports,  and  we  feel 
that  the  State  Avould  not  permit  us  to  do  so. 

The  custom  in  printing  is  to  submit  proofs  to  the  customer.  His  cor¬ 
rections,  as  noted  on  the  proofs,  are  duly  made  and  the  forms  are  then 
printed.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Nichols  has  instructed  us  not  to 
send  the  proofs  to  Judge  Clark,  and  since  he  returns  the  proofs  that  have 

4 


been  sent  to  him  endorsed,  “Not  read,”  we  do  not  know  to  whom  they 
should  be  sent  for  the  final  O.  K.  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  wording. 
For  this  reason  we  respectfully  ask  the  Printing  Commission  to  instruct 
us  to  whom  they  shall  be  sent,  so  that  we  can  proceed  with  this  book 
according  to  the  usual  custom  of  printing. 

In  \  iew  of  the  fact  that  this  company  has  now  on  hand  1,250  volumes 
of  this  same  Report,  which  were  refused  under  the  circumstances  re¬ 
lated  herein,  said  volumes  costing  approximately  $3,500.00,  we  respect¬ 
fully  ask  the  Commission  to  give  us  the  ruling  requested,  to  the  end 
that  we  may  submit  proofs  without  further  delay,  and  thus  expedite 
the  completion  of  this  reprint. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Edwards  &  Broughton  Printing  Company, 

Ciias.  Lee  Smith,  President. 

Copies  to — 

Hon.  Cameron  Morrison,  Chairman; 

Hon.  J.  Bryan  Grimes, 

Hon.  Baxter  Durham, 

Hon.  B.  R.  Lacy, 

Hon.  E.  C.  Brooks, 

Hon.  James  S.  Manning, 

Hon.  M.  L.  Shipman,  Secretary; 

Hon.  Walter  Clark, 

Mr.  L.  E.  Nichols. 


REPLY  OF  CHIEF  JUSTICE  CLARK 

Raleigh,  27  November,  1922. 

Dr.  Charles  Lee  Smith,  President, 

Edwards  &  Broughton  Printing  Co., 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 

My  dear  Sir  : — I  have  received  the  enclosure  which  you  sent  me  of  a 
copy  of  your  letter  to  the  State  Printing  Commission. 

It  is  incomprehensible  to  me  that  you  should  claim  that  I  was  proof¬ 
reader  of  your  establishment  of  the  132  N.  C.  Reports,  which  you  printed 
for  the  State. 

It  was  your  business  to  furnish  the  proof-reader,  and  foi  any  defect  m 
that  respect  the  responsibility  rests  upon  you  and  your  company.  The 
State  furnished,  at  its  own  expense,  a  Printing  Commissioner,  to  whom 
your  work  was  to  be  submitted,  and  by  whom  it  was  to  be  approved  be¬ 
fore  being  paid  for.  It  seems  that  Commissioner  did  not  approve 

of  your  work  and  declined  to  pay  for  it. 

Mv  duty  in  regard  to  the  matter  was  simply  to  annotate  these  vol- 

umes  and  as  that  part  of  the  work  was  legal,  the  Commissioner  had  your 
printing  sent  to  me  to  verify  these  citations— merely  that  and  nothing 

more. 


I  have  been  doing  this  work  for  the  State  since  1898 — 24  years — and 
have  read  the  proof  of  these  annotations  for  several  printers,  among  them 
your  company.  This  is  the  first  time  I  have  heard  it  claimed  that  I  was 
responsible  for  the  proof-reading  of  any  of  these  volumes,  beyond  my 
annotations  at  the  end  of  the  cases. 

You  knew  that  I  usually  returned  the  proofs  in  two  or  three  hours, 
often  by  the  messenger  that  brought  them,  always  on  the  same  day,  and 
that  I  could  not  possibly  have  read  the  whole  proof.  You  knew  that  out¬ 
side  of  the  annotations  your  proof-reader,  and  not  I,  was  responsible  for 
the  work. 

You  also  knew  that  for  the  most  of  these  volumes  I  received  for  my 
work  only  $25  each;  $50  each  for  a  few  volumes,  and  $75  each  for  the 
latest  volumes,  when  the  annotations  got  heavier,  and  you  knew  that  I 
could  not  for  that  amount,  besides  making  all  the  annotations,  read  all 
the  proof,  and  undertake  to  become  responsible  for  all  the  deficiencies 
in  your  work. 

Your  claim  is  so  very  remarkable  that  I  am  sending  a  copy  of  this 
letter  to  each  member  of  the  Printing  Commission.  As  to  your  com¬ 
plaint  that  Mr.  Nichols  has  instructed  you  not  to  send  proofs  to  me,  it  is 
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  I  duly  read  the  annotations  and  corrected 
them  in  this  volume,  and  since  the  Commission  has  rejected  the  volume, 
it  is  only  necessary  that  you  in  your  reprint  of  it  should  take  the  anno¬ 
tations  which  I  read  in  your  first  printing  of  this  volume. 

Yours  truly, 

Waltee  Claek. 

Copies  to — 

Hon.  Cameron  Morrison, 

Hon.  J.  Bryan  Grimes, 

Hon.  Baxter  Durham, 

Hon.  B.  B.  Lacy, 

Hon.  E.  C.  Brooks, 

Hon.  James  S.  Manning, 

Hon.  M.  L.  Shipman, 

Hon.  L.  E.  Nichols. 


REPLY  OF  DEPARTMENT  OF  LABOR  AND  PRINTING 

Raleigh,  November  28,  1922. 

De.  Chaeles  Lee  Smith,  President, 

Edwards  &  Broughton  Printing  Co., 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 

Deae  Sie: — I  am  in  receipt  of  a  copy  of  your  letter  to  the  Printing 
Commission,  dated  November  25th,  relative  to  Volume  132,  N.  C.  Su¬ 
preme  Court  Reports,  which  you  are  now  reprinting. 

Inasmuch  as  the  point  raised  is  as  to  a  supervisory  detail  devolved  by 
law  and  the  terms  of  your  contract  upon  this  Department,  the  Printing 

6 


Commission  will,  of  course,  not  take  cognizance  of  it,  much  less  will  it 
assume  to  direct  as  to  a  matter  necessarily  resting  in  the  sound  judgment 
and  discretion  of  this  Department ;  and  I  am  surprised  that  it  should  be 
made  the  subject  of  a  letter  to  that  body,  especially  since  in  two  recent 
conferences  between  you  and  myself  this  very  question  was  broached  by 
you,  and  the  understanding  arrived  at  relative  thereto  was  confirmed  by 
you,  in  a  letter  dated  October  10th,  in  the  following  language : 

“As  promised,  proof  will  be  sent  to  Mr.  Nichols,  and  we  hope 
to  complete  the  order  without  delay.” 

At  the  last  conference  it  was  particularly  pointed  out  that  it  would  be 
impossible  (for  lack  of  time)  for  the  Assistant  Commissioner  to  read 
the  proof  in  detail,  but  that  he  would  check  it  up  for  spacing,  paging, 
running  folios,  general  style,  etc.,  in  which  matters  the  new  proofs  them¬ 
selves  showed  your  printers  deficient.  This  has  been  done  as  to  all 
proof  so  far  submitted,  and  something  like  225  pages  have  been  so 
handled.  It  was  pointed  out  that  it  would  only  be  necessary  for  you  to 
follow  the  reprint  copy  and  the  corrections  marked  therein.  You  and 
your  proofreader  left  me  apparently  satisfied  with  this. 

You  do  not  state  the  facts  in  your  letter  to  the  Printing  Commission, 
and  it  is  deemed  advisable  to  restate  the  history  of  the  matter. 

The  order  for  the  printing  of  this  volume  was  placed  with  you  on 
Februarv  18,  1921. 

Copies  of  the  printed  volume  were  submitted  to  this  Department,  with 
bill,  some  time  in  April,  1922. 

Upon  inspection  of  the  work  for  the  purpose  of  approving  the  bill  for 
payment,  its  character  was  disclosed,  and  the  matter  was  immediately 
called  to  the  attention  of  your  company. 

It  Avas  later  agreed  between  your  representative  and  myself,  in  order 
to  prevent  a  complete  loss  to  you,  that  in  lieu  of  complete  rejection,  your 
company  would  be  permitted  to  saUage  the  volume  by  reprinting  and 
pasting  in  112  pages,  upon  which  the  most  glaring  errors  and  omissions 
occurred,  printing  and  inserting  a  few  pages  of  errata  covering  some  not 
so  glaring,  and  that  the  others  would  be  overlooked. 

Your  company  undertook  to  handle  the  volume  in  this  way,  sub¬ 
mitted  copies  so  corrected,  and  this  Department  paid  $1,000  on  account. 

When  this  had  been  done,  you  were  unwilling  that  a  volume  so  muti¬ 
lated  should  be  sent  out  to  the  legal  profession  bearing  your  imprint. 

You  came  to  me  and  stated  that  you  wished  to  reprint  the  volume,  and 
requested,  in  Ariew  of  the  loss  you  would  sustain,  that  the  State  furnish 
the  paper  for  reprinting.  I  stated  to  you  that  this  could  not  be  done. 
It  was  then  agreed  that  this  Department  would  sell  the  paper  to  you  at 
our  cost,  and  that  the  original  covers  might  be  used  if  securely  and  per¬ 
manently  put  on. 

The  understanding  as  to  the  proof  Avas  as  hereinbefore  stated. 

The  suggestion  that  the  proof  be  sent  to  Mr.  Nichols  Avas  made  by  you 
to  me.  No  word  of  instruction  relative  to  the  reprinting  of  this  volume, 
I  believe,  has  passed  from  Mr.  Nichols  to  you. 

7 


The  Assistant  Commissioner  will,  of  course,  at  all  times  accept  full 
responsibility  for  his  connection  with  the  State’s  printing;  hut  I  would 
not  have  you  ring  him  in  on  a  matter  that  has  been  the  subject  of  treaty 
solely  between  you  and  myself. 

Your  contract  stipulates  that  proofs  and  revises  shall  be  submitted 
when  required,  and  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  to  he  sent  are  named  in 
the  order  from  this  Department. 

The  law  placed  the  supervision  of  the  State  printing  under  the  juris¬ 
diction  of  this  Department;  and  in  order  to  supervise  it,  it  is  necessary 
to  see  it.  Therefore,  proofs  will  be  required  whenever  in  our  judgment 
it  is  desirable  to  have  them. 

You  say: 

“We  are  unwilling  to  assume  final  responsibility  for  the 
proofreading  of  the  Yorth  Carolina  Reports.” 

This  is  the  inescapable  responsibility  you  assumed  when  you  entered 
into  a  contract  with  the  State  to  do  a  part  of  its  printing. 

You  contracted  to  do  the  work  in  “a  first-class,  workmanlike  manner, 
up  to  the  standard  heretofore  maintained.” 

Correct  printing  involves  accurate  proofreading.  Proofreading  re¬ 
quires  practiced  eyes  and  technical  training  in  the  trade. 

You  held  yourself  out  to  the  State  as  having  all  that  was  requisite, 
in  men  and  equipment,  to  the  performance  of  the  work  in  “a  first-class, 
workmanlike  manner,  up  to  the  standard  maintained.” 

The  State  has  never  agreed  to  accept  Chief  Justice  Clark,  or  any  one 
else  not  technically  trained  as  proofreader,  to  relieve  you  of  your  con¬ 
tractual  obligation  in  this  respect.  It  must  always  hold  the  contractor 
responsible  for  the  character  of  the  finished  product. 

A  reasonable  compliance  with  the  terms  of  your  contract  should  do 
away  with  all  occasion  for  controversy. 

Assuring  you  of  our  willingness  to  cooperate  with  you  to  this  end, 
I  am,  Very  truly, 

M.  L.  Shipman, 

Commissioner. 

Copies  to — 

Hon.  Cameron  Morrison,  Governor ; 

Hon.  J.  Bryan  Grimes, 

Hon.  B.  R.  Lacy, 

Hon.  Baxter  Durham, 

Hon.  E.  C.  Brooks, 

Hon.  James  S.  Manning, 

Chief  Justice  Walter  Clark. 


SECOND  LETTER  OF  CONTRACTOR  TO  THE  STATE 

PRINTING  COMMISSION 

(Given  to  the  Press  by  the  Contractor) 

Raleigh,  N.  C.,  December  12,  1922. 

The  State  Printing  Commission, 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 

Gentlemen  : — On  the  25th  ultimo  we  wrote  you  with  special  reference 
to  Volume  132,  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court  Reports,  sending  a  copy 
of  this  letter  to  the  Chairman,  to  the  Secretary,  and  to  each  of  the  other 
members  of  the  State  Printing  Commission.  We  deem  the  subject-mat¬ 
ter  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  another  letter,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  we  have  no  official  acknowledgment  of  our  first  letter  from  the  State 
Printing  Commission. 

We  have  heretofore  been  directed  by  the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Labor  and  Printing  to  submit  proofs  of  all  important  State  printing, 
including  the  Supreme  Court  Reports,  and  upon  the  return  to  us  of  the 
corrected  proofs,  we  have  proceeded  with  the  printing. 

With  particular  reference  to  the  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  we  have  heretofore  been  directed  to  send  the  proofs  to  Chief 
Justice  Clark,  who  made  the  necessary  corrections,  and  upon  receipt 
from  him  of  the  corrected  proofs,  we  have  proceeded  with  the  printing 
and  completion  of  the  volumes.  With  respect  to  the  Reports,  we  under¬ 
stand  that  this  was  an  authorized  procedure,  and  this  has  been  borne  out 
by  the  fact  that  in  each  instance,  we  have  been  instructed  by  the  Com¬ 
missioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  to  make  payment  to  Chief  Justice 
Clark  of  the  fees  charged  by  him  for  “editing  and  annotating”  these 
Reports,  the  amounts  so  charged  ranging  from  $25.00  to  $75.00  per 
volume,  and  to  charge  these  amounts  in  the  printing  bill  submitted  to 
the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing.  In  a  number  of  cases  in 
the  reprints,  we  are  advised  that  certain  statements  of  facts,  as  they 
appeared  in  the  original  Reports,  have  been  omitted  or  very  substan¬ 
tially  reduced,  and  this  is  an  additional  reason  for  having  all  proofs  read 
by  the  editor  and  annotator. 

In  connection  with  the  reprint  of  the  132  North  Carolina  Report, 
now  in  progress,  we  were  instructed  by  the  office  of  the  Commissioner  ot 
Labor  and  Printing  not  to  send  proofs  to  Chief  Justice  Clark,  as  had 
been  our  practice  for  a  number  of  years,  but  to  send  them  to  .Mi.  Vn  hols, 
Assistant  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing.  When,  therefore,  vo 
received  these  instructions,  we  were  to  a  certain  extent  surprised.  Inas¬ 
much,  however,  as  the  work  was  to  be  done  under  the  supervision  of  the 
office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing,  we  had  no  reason  to 
demur  to  this  change  of  established  procedure,  and  accordingly  sent 

9 


proofs  to  Mr.  Nichols.  Our  amazement  may,  therefore,  be  imagined 
when  the  proofs  were  returned  to  us  from  Mr.  Nichols  with  the  endorse¬ 
ment,  “Not  read.” 

Because  of  the  character  of  the  work  involved  in  the  printing  and 
reprinting  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  Reports,  we  informed  you  in 
our  letter  of  the  25th  ultimo  that  “we  are  unwilling  to  assume  final 
responsibility  for  the  proofreading  of  the  North  Carolina  Reports.” 
Our  reasons  for  this  position  must  be  apparent  to  you  and  certainly  they 
are  all  the  more  important  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  has  not  endeavored 
to  cooperate  with  us,  but  on  the  contrary  has  indicated  an  attitude  to¬ 
wards  our  work  which  has  caused  us  serious  embarrassment.  We  ad¬ 
dressed  our  communication  with  reference  to  this  matter  to  the  State 
Printing  Commission,  for  the  reason  that  our  contract  for  the  State 
printing  was  made  with  the  Commission,  and  we  supposed  that  it  was 
not  only  our  privilege,  hut  our  right  and  duty  to  bring  to  the  attention 
of  your  Commission  any  matter  relating  to  our  contract,  and  that  such 
matter  would  receive  the  official  attention  of  the  Commission.  As  yet, 
we  have  not  received  from  your  Commission  any  official  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  our  letter  of  the  25th  ultimo,  hut  we  have  received  from  Hon. 
M.  L.  Shipman,  who  writes  as  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing, 
and  not  as  Secretary  of  the  State  Printing  Commission,  a  letter  dated 
the  28th  ultimo,  acknowledging  the  copy  sent  to  him,  in  which  he  says : 
“Inasmuch  as  the  point  raised  is  as  to  the  supervisory  detail  devolved  by 
law  and  the  terms  of  your  contract  upon  this  Department,  the  Printing 
Commission  will,  of  course,  not  take  cognizance  of  it,  much  less  will  it 
assume  to  direct,  as  the  matter  necessarily  rests  on  the  sound  judgment 
and  discretion  of  this  Department.” 

The  ruling  of  the  Commissioner,  therefore,  denies  to  us  the  right  to 
bring  this  matter  to  your  official  attention  for  such  action  as  you  may 
deem  proper,  after  you  have  afforded  us  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
concerning  it. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  a  matter  involving  a  question  as  to  whether 
the  office  of  the.  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  is  following  the 
law  and  is  attempting  its  supervision  contrary  to  the  terms  of  the  law, 
passes  considerably  beyond  the  question  of  “supervisory  detail.”  We  do 
not  believe  that  you  would  permit  a  matter  in  which  we  have  such  vital 
interest  to  be  decided,  and  finally  disposed  of,  by  a  single  member  of  the 
Commission,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  our  contract  is  with  the  State 
Printing  Commission  and  not  with  the  Department  of  Labor  and 
Printing. 

The  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  having  returned 
the  proofs  of  the  132  North  Carolina  Reports  unread,  we  hesitate  to 
involve  the  expenditure  and  possible  loss  to  ourselves  in  connection  with 
the  printing  of  this  Report,  in  the  absence  of  advice  from  the  Printing 
Commission  as  to  the  questions  raised  with  respect  to  the  proofreading. 

10 


1  rior  to  May,  1921,  no  question  of  the  kind  presented  by  this  letter 
ever  arose,  nor,  we  may  say,  until  the  viewpoint  of  the  Assistant  Com¬ 
missioner  of  Labor  and  Printing,  Mr.  Nichols,  with  respect  to  the  pro¬ 
gram  of  the  State  printing,  had  become  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  policy 
of  the  Department.  Since  that  time  such  work  as  has  been  allotted  to 
us  has  been  small  in  amount  and  allotted  under  such  conditions  as  to 
make  it  unprofitable,  vexatious  and  embarrassing. 

We  have  placed  these  facts  before  the  State  Printing  Commission 
with  the  request  and  hope  that  you  would  give  the  matter  your  unbiased 
consideration,  and  that  you  might  call  upon  us  for  any  further  and 
more  definite  information,  and  for  any  explanation  that  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Labor  and  Printing  might  care  to  make. 

In  further  connection  with  this  matter,  we  invite  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  our  services  to  the  State  have  covered  a  period  of  many 
years,  and  we  pride  ourselves  in  the  manner  in  which  we  have  been  per¬ 
mitted  to  serve. 

We  respectfully  request  an  investigation  of  the  merits  of  our  position, 
to  the  end  that  such  relief  as  the  facts  warrant  may  be  granted. 

Respectfully  yours, 

Edwards  &  Broughton  Printing  Co., 

Copies  to —  Chas.  Lee  Smith,  President. 

lion.  Cameron  Morrison,  Chairman ; 

Hon.  J.  Bryan  Grimes, 

Hon.  Baxter  Durham, 

Hon.  B.  R.  Lacy, 

Hon.  E.  C.  Brooks, 

Hon.  James  S.  Manning, 

Hon.  M.  L.  Shipman,  Secretary ; 

Hon.  W alter  Clark, 

Mr.  L.  E.  Nichols. 


REPLY  OF  DEPARTMENT  OF  LABOR  AND  PRINTING  TO 
SECOND  LETTER  OF  CONTRACTOR 

Raleigh,  December  14,  1922. 

Dr.  Charles  Lee  Smith,  President, 

Edwards  &  Broughton  Printing  Co., 

Raleigh,  N.  C. 

Dear  Sir: — We  are  in  receipt  of  a  copy  of  your  second  letter  to  the 
State  Printing  Commission,  relative  to  Volume  132,  which  you  volun- 
^00P0(1  reprint,  for  the  reasons  stated  and  under  the  tcims  and  condi¬ 
tions  enumerated  in  our  letter  to  you,  dated  November  28th. 

The  position  of  the  Department  as  to  this  detail  of  administration  is 
final  and  (as  we  construe  the  law  and  the  terms  of  the- contract)  con¬ 
trolling. 


11 


The  Printing  Commission  will  not,  of  course,  do  the  futile  thing  of 
attempting  to  substitute  its  judgment  for  ours  in  a  matter  the  very  na¬ 
ture  of  which  calls  for  the  exercise  of  sound  judgment  and  discretion  on 
the  part  of  this  Department  in  its  supervision  of  the  State  printing, 
nor  should  it  be  expected  to  take  formal  and  official  cognizance  of  a  point 
so  puerile  as  that  raised  by  you  as  to  proofs. 

Having  falsely  represented  to  the  Printing  Commission  in  three  differ¬ 
ent  paragraphs  of  your  original  complaint  that  the  Assistant  Commis¬ 
sioner  had  directed  the  sending  of  proofs,  you  now  falsely  state,  and 
affect  /‘surprise,”  that  “we  were  instructed  by  the  office  of  the  Commis¬ 
sioner  of  Labor  and  Printing,”  in  spite  of  the  reminder  in  our  letter 
and  your  own  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  it  was  your  own  voluntary, 
unprompted  suggestion. 

You  also  now  confess  to  a  feeling  of  “amazement”  that  the  proofs 
should  have  been  returned  marked  “Hot  read,”  when  with  your  own 
proofreader  and  your  son  present  with  us  in  this  Department  it  was 
particularly  pointed  out  that  the  proofs  would  not  be  read,  but  checked 
up  for  spacing,  pagination,  running  folios,  general  style,  etc.,  in  which 
matters  the  new  proofs  themselves  showed  your  printers  deficient.  You 
and  your  proofreader  expressed  confidence  in  the  ability  of  your  office  to 
reproduce  the  volume  from  the  reprint  copy. 

The  discovery  that  you  could  not  safely  undertake  such  a  task  was 
apparently  made  after  our  last  conference.  But  this  fact  cannot  operate 
to  relieve  you  of  your  contractual  obligation  in  this  regard. 

Your  statement  that  “the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and 
Printing  has  not  endeavored  to  cooperate  with  us,”  is  false  and  baseless, 
within  your  own  knowledge.  On  the  contrary,  in  an  effort  to  protect 
your  company  from  the  necessity  for  the  absolute  rejection  of  your 
work,  and  in  order  that  the  State  might  receive  it  in  usable  condition, 
this  Department  has  found  it  necessary  to  expend  three  times  as  much 
labor  in  connection  with  the  work  handled  by  you  as  should  have  been 
required.  Volume  132  is  an  example  of  your  product  when  not 
supervised. 

Yours  is  a  plea  of  confession  and  avoidance.  You  insist  you  must  be 
relieved  of  a  responsibility  that  has  been  the  printer’s  since  the  days  of 
Gutenberg. 

There  is  not  a  shred  of  truth  in  your  statement  that  there  has  been 
a  change  in  the  policy  of  the  Department  in  derogation  of  your  rights  as 
a  contractor.  The  policy  of  this  Department  has  been  consistent  and 
uniform.  All  contractors  are  treated  exactly  alike.  You  alone  of  the 
five  admit  you  cannot  do  your  work  in  the  usual  way. 

There  has  been  a  change  in  conditions. 

On  one  of  the  many  occasions  your  superintendent  was  called  to  this 
Department  to  see  printed  matter  spoiled  by  your  company,  he  said : 
“Ho  excuse  can  be  offered  for  that  kind  of  work.  I  hope  you  don’t 
blame  me  personally  for  it.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  supervise  every 

12 


detail.  Y  on  must  consider  tlie  fact  that  we  had  to  put  in  a  force  of 
people,  many  of  whom  had  never  seen  the  inside  of  a  printing  office,  and 
train  them.” 

During  this  period  of  training,  the  State’s  printing  has  been  roughly 
used  by  strange  and  inexperienced  hands,  and  has  suffered  greatly  in 
quality,  even  after  the  greatest  care  and  closest  supervision. 

Every  charge  you  have  made  or  may  make,  secretly  or  openly,  of 
unfair  dealing  on  the  part  of  this  Department,  is  susceptible  of  complete 
and  conclusive  refutation.  But  we  cannot  proceed  on  generalities. 

We  therefore  call  upon  you  for  a  bill  of  particulars,  and  challenge  you 
to  put  in  writing,  fully  and  completely,  every  statement,  allegation,  or 
insinuation  of  unfairness,  partiality,  or  improper  conduct  at  any  time 
on  the  part  of  any  member  of  this  Department  in  their  dealings  with 
your  company  or  affecting  your  contract,  together  with  the  names  of  all 
persons  to  whom  you  have  made  any  such  statement,  allegation,  or 
insinuation,  file  a  copy  with  the  State  Printing  Commission  and  a  copy 
with  this  Department ;  and  we  will  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  open- 
minded  person  that  each  and  every  one  of  them  is  recklessly  and  mali¬ 
ciously  false. 

We  shall  insist  upon  an  open  meeting  and  an  invitation  to  the  press 
to  give  the  widest  publicity  to  the'  facts  developed. 

Department  of  Labor  and  Printing, 

M.  L.  Shipman, 

Commissioner. 
Lawrence  E.  Nichols, 

Copies  to —  Assistant  Commissioner. 

Hon.  Cameron  Morrison,  Chairman ; 

Hon.  J.  Bryan  Grimes, 

Hon.  Baxter  Durham, 

Hon.  B.  R.  Lacy, 

Hon.  E.  C.  Brooks, 

Hon.  James  S.  Manning, 

Chief  Justice  Walter  Clark. 


STATEMENT  TO  THE  PRESS  BY  EDWARDS  &  BROUGHTON 

PRINTING  COMPANY 

(From  News  and  Observer,  December  17) 


Dr.  Charles  Lee  Smith,  President  of  the  Edwards  &  Broughton  Print¬ 
ing  Company,  when  interviewed  yesterday,  made  the  following  state 

ment : 

I  do  not  think  that  there  was  anything  in  the  letter  of  the  Edwards 
&  Broughton  Printing  Company  to  the  State  Printing  Commission,  a 
copy  of  which  was  sent  to  Mr.  Shipman,  to  call  forth  the  outburst  of 
pas«ion  from  Commissioner  Shipman  and  Assistant  Commissioner 
Nichols,  as  appears  from  the  letter  published  Friday  morning.  1  ’ 

13 


have 


counselled  with  my  attorneys, Major  Allen  and  Major  Manning,  about  the 
request  made  in  my  letter  to  the  State  Printing  Commission  under  date 
of  the  12th  instant,  and  the  reply  thereto  of  Commissioner  Shipman  and 
Assistant  Commissioner  Nichols,  and  it  is  perfectly  apparent  to  me  as 
well  as  to  them,  that  the  sole  object  of  their  reply  is  to  divert  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  Commission  and  the  public  generally  from  the  request  made 
in  my  letter. 

When  the  Edwards  &  Broughton  Printing  Company  undertook,  for  the 
second  time,  to  reprint  the  132  North  Carolina  Report,  it  was  ordered 
to  send  the  proofs  to  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing 
and  not  to  Chief  Justice  Clark,  and  upon  the  return  of  the  proofs  with 
the  notation  “Not  read,”  I  consulted  with  my  attorneys,  and  at  this 
conference  I  learned  for  the  first  time  that  there  were  certain  omissions 
of  statements  of  fact  from  the  reprint,  and  was  advised  that  there  was 
no  statutory  authority  for  such  omissions.  At  this  same  conference, 
when  I  informed  my  attorneys  that  I  have  been  instructed  by  the  Com¬ 
missioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  to  pay  with  the  check  of  my  company, 
the  charges  made  by  Chief  Justice  Clark  for  editing  and  annotating 
the  Reports,  and  to  include  such  charge  in  the  bill  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Commissioner,  I  was  advised  by  them  that  the  Commissioner  of  Labor 
and  Printing  was  without  lawful  authority  to  make  such  an  order  and 
that  Chief  Justice  Clark  had  no  right  to  receive  such  payments  in  such 
manner,  and  that  he  had  no  right  to  receive  any  fees  or  emoluments 
except  those  prescribed  by  the  Legislature.  It  thereupon  became  neces¬ 
sary  to  ascertain  who  was  responsible  for  the  proofreading  and  the 
omission  of  the  statement  of  facts.  I  feel  that  the  legal  profession  is 
entitled  to  a  full  reprint,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  retail 
price  of  North  Carolina  Reports  has  been  advanced  from  $1.50  per 
volume  to  $3.00  per  volume,  and  I  am  informed  that  many  able  lawyers 
regard  these  omissions  as  a  very  serious  matter,  and  I  resent  being  re¬ 
quired  by  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Printing  to  reprint  a  volume 
in  a  manner  for  which  there  is  no  authority  in  law,  and  of  which  I  was 
innocent  until  this  controversy  arose.  The  statute  provides  the  manner 
in  which  the  reprinting  shall  be  done  and  how  the  cost,  including  the  fees 
for  editing  and  annotating,  shall  be  paid,  and  it  will  not  be  contro¬ 
verted  that  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  and  Chief  Justice 
Clark  were  advertent  to  this  statute. 

The  omission  of  the  statements  of  fact  was  authorized  by  the  Com¬ 
missioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  or  else  made  by  some  one  in  a  high¬ 
handed  manner,  and  I  feel  that  unless  the  responsibility  for  the  omis¬ 
sions  and  the  proofreading  is  placed  upon  someone,  the  very  same  offi¬ 
cials  who  have  rejected  one  reprint  of  this  Report  for  errors,  could 
reject  the  reprint  now  being  made  upon  the  grounds  that  it  is  not  a  full 
reprint.  Fortunately,  some  of  the  original  proofs  of  the  rejected  reprint 
are  still  in  the  possession  of  my  company  and  they  show  that  they  were 
read  and  corrected,  not  only  in  respect  to  annotations,  but  to  the  text 
generally. 


14 


A  reading  of  Mr.  Shipman’s  letter  undoubtedly  leaves  the  impression 
that  it  is  a  studious  effort  to  convince  the  public  that  the  Edwards  & 
Broughton  Printing  Company  are  not  good  printers.  The  Commis¬ 
sioner  apparently  takes  pride  in  boasting  of  the  inability  of  my  company 
to  do  work  satisfactory  to  my  department,  at  a  time  when  we  have  the 
largest  number  of  satisfied  customers  in  our  history. 


Messrs.  Shipman  and  Nichols  declare  in  their  communication  that 
the  position  of  the  Department  upon  the  question  of  the  reprint  is  final 
and  controlling,  and  in  the  same  communication  they  invite  my  com¬ 
pany  to  appear  before  the  Printing  Commission  with  a  bill  of  particu¬ 
lars.  The  mental  gymnastics  of  these  officials  are  like  unto  those  of  the 
lawyer  who  goes  into  court  and  in  one  motion  denies  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  court  over  the  subject-matter  and  in  the  same  motion  demands  a 
bill  of  particulars.  I  am  advised  by  my  attorneys  that  a  bill  of  par¬ 
ticulars  is  entirely  out  of  order  and  that  I  have  already  furnished  full 
details  of  my  position  with  respect  to  the  question  involved. 

Messrs.  Shipman  and  INTichols  appear  greatly  irritated  that  any  com¬ 
plaint  should  be  made  to  the  Printing  Commission  with  respect  to  their 
Department.  The  right  of  citizens  to  criticize  an  administrative  depart¬ 
ment  seems  to  have  been  recognized,  and  no  one  should  be  better  ac¬ 
quainted  with  this  fact  than  Mr.  Nichols  himself,  who  was  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Resolutions  at  a  meeting  of  the  North  Carolina  Fed¬ 
eration  of  Labor  at  Wrightsville  Beach  during  August,  1922,  when  a 
resolution  criticizing  the  Executive  Department  of  this  State  in  the 
employment  of  the  military  forces  during  the  railroad  strike,  presumably 
passed  through  his  hands  and  presumably  through  his  committee  unani¬ 
mously  approved  and  without  any  recorded  protest  from  him. 


COMMISSIONER  SHIPMAN’S  REPLY  TO  STATEMENT 

( News  and  Observer,  December  17) 

If  Dr.  Smith’s  attorneys,  whom  he  admits  consulting  very  frequently, 
advised  him  that  it  was  any  part  of  his  business,  as  a  contractor,  to 
scrutinize  for  legal  technicalities  or  to  censor  the  subject-mattei  of  am 
State  publication,  or  that  he  assumed  any  responsibility  in  connection 
therewith  other  than  to  reproduce  it  as  furnished  to  him  by  the  State, 
then  we  predict  he  will  soon  be  regretting  the  money  he  pays  to  his 

legal  advisers. 

In  constituting  himself  a  committee  of  one  to  look  after  the  interests 
of  the  legal  profession  in  connection  with  the  State  printing,  lie  is  a 
volunteer  simply;  his  contract  does  not  contemplate  it,  nor  does  it  pro¬ 
vide  compensation  therefor. 

The  doctor  and  his  attorneys  are  admittedly  qualified  to  speak  on  the 
question  of  mental  gymnastics.  All  of  their  performances  are  “up  m 

the  air.” 


15 


The  doctor  charged  in  his  second  letter  to  the  Printing  Commission 
that  “The  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  and  Printing  has  not  . 
endeavored  to  cooperate  with  us?  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  indicated  an 
attitude  towards  our  work  which  has  caused  us  serious  embarrassment” ; 
intimating  that  it  “is  attempting  its  supervision  contrary  to  the  tfcrms 
of  the  law”;  that  partiality  was  shown  in  the  distribution  of  the 
work,  etc. 

Now,  if  his  attorneys  have  advised  him  and  he  is  acting  on  the  advice 
that,  after  making  such  charges,  he  can  evade  our  demand  for  a  bill  of 
particulars — then  he  and  they  have  a  very  poor  conception  of  the  obliga¬ 
tion,  moral  and  legal,  resting  upon  him  under  such  circumstances. 

We  have  called  upon  this  contractor  for  a  bill  of  particulars,  and  are 
anxious,  instead  of  trying  the  merits  of  the  case  in  the  newspapers,  to 
have  the  facts  developed  under  oath  before  a  duly  constituted  body. 

He  cannot  honorably  refuse  to  come  forward  in  response  to  our 
challenge. 

This  should  prove  an  antidote  for  loose  and  irresponsible  talk. 


COMMISSIONER  SHIPMAN’S  LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR 
MORRISON,  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  PRINTING 

COMMISSION 

Raleigh,  December  18,  1922. 

Dear  Governor  Morrison  : — When  you  shall  have  had  time  to  read 
and  digest  the  letters  that  have  passed  between  Edwards  &  Broughton 
Printing  Company  and  this  Department,  based  upon  the  company’s 
representations  to  the  Printing  Commission  as  to  proofreading,  you  will 
understand  that  the  Department  has  dealt  with  the  matter  in  the  usual 
and  only  practical  way.  Every  printer  understands  that. 

We  will  not,  therefore,  ask  for  a  meeting  of  the  Commission  to  con¬ 
sider  so  ridiculous  a  proposition. 

This  company  has,  however,  in  its  second  letter  to  the  Commission, 
made  representations  of  a  character  calling  for  proof. 

We  have  called  upon  it  for  a  bill  of  particulars,  and  upon  its  pre¬ 
sentation,  and  after  reasonable  time  for  preparation  of  our  side  of  the 
case,  we  very  much  desire  that  all  points  raised  be  gone  into  with  the 
greatest  thoroughness,  so  that  the  truth  may  be  developed,  and  Dr.  Smith, 
who  has  for  three  or  four  years  conducted  a  secret  campaign  of  false¬ 
hood  and  misrepresentation  against  this  Department,  be  rendered  impo¬ 
tent  to  harm  by  this  method  in  future. 

It  is  our  wish  to  clean  the  slate  with  one  stroke  of  the  sponge. 

Yours  very  truly, 

M.  L.  Shipman, 

Commissioner. 


16 


FOR  USE  ONLY  IN 


THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  COLLECTION 


UNIVERSITY  OF 


N.C. 


AT 


CHAPEL  HILL 


